Consumer Advice

As mentioned above, PEGI ratings are double tiered in the sense that they can also include “content descriptors”. The use of content descriptors such as those shown below alongside age-ratings mean that you can more readily understand how a game has been awarded its age-rating. That should give you a better idea as to whether a game is suitable for you (or a family member) or not.

The PEGI content descriptors are as follows, and you can read more about them here:

It is essential to understand that not all games are made for children. Some games are perfect for all ages, some are suitable for children, some are suitable for teenagers, and others are absolutely adult in theme. There is a PEGI app available which allows users to search the PEGI database for up-to-date video game rating classifications and filter results by age rating, genre and platform (amongst other things). The app also provides detailed instructions on how to set up parental controls across a range of devices. You can read more about the PEGI app (and download it) by clicking here.

• Reassure your child that if there is anything that makes them feel uncomfortable, confused or upset within a video game, they can talk to you without you getting angry.
• Tell your children not to give out personal details in games and encourage them to report inappropriate behaviour to you. This can be passed on to the game’s creators via their website, or sometimes even within the game itself using a reporting mechanism.
• Set limits to what games your children can play – and for
  how long – by using the parental control tools on your games consoles, mobile devices and computers. Parental controls also let you manage what your children can and cannot download. The NSPCC has created a helpful guide to setting up parental controls on a range of devices, and in a variety of cases, covering games consoles and more.
• Never give your children passwords that allow money to be spent online in games. Make sure you handle and approve all in- game spending.
• Monitor your child’s screen time. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health suggests that it is “impossible” to recommend age appropriate time limits for screen time, instead urging parents to “approach screen time based on the child’s development age and individual need”. For more information see the full report here.

There are numerous benefits to playing games, and while simple escapism from reality for a period can be particularly helpful for a person’s mental health, games can also educate, improve social skills, connect families, offer physical health benefits, engage children with creativity and literacy, and inspire remarkably rewarding careers (see below).

However, everything should of course be done in moderation, as many activities enjoyed to excess can be bad for you – and video games are no exception. Sometimes a long gaming session can be rewarding, but when it comes at the expense of work, study, sleep, eating, socialising or physical activity, there may well be a problem that need to be addressed.

All in all, video games should be enjoyed as part of a balanced lifestyle, as that is when they deliver the most benefit to us. Professional esports players may play for extended periods of time or more regularly than casual players but, as a result, they and their teams should approach their gameplay with particular care as to their physical health.

• Bring therapeutic advantages to youngsters, improve motor skills, better vision, provide pain relief, and even bolster happiness in the elderly
• Improve children’s social skills and developing intelligence
• Boost productivity in the office when played as team
• Reduces reaction time, improves hand-eye co-ordination and raises players’ self-esteem
• Increase perception and memory
• Overcome dyslexia
• Help with weight loss and taking up sports
• Help treat depression
• Improve cognitive functioning
• Boost creativity

A common criticism of video games is that their sometimes-violent content can drive real-world aggression. However, recent research shows violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents’ aggressive behaviour. Dr Tanya Byron’s high profile government-commissioned report Safer Children in a Digital World – otherwise known as The Byron Review – also found no causal link between playing violent video games and violence in real life.

To play games, you will generally be required to make a payment. However, the way in which developers and publishers are obtaining payment in respect of games and their content has somewhat changed in the past few years. It is important that as consumers of games, we can recognise the difference between the most common types of “monetisation” models currently adopted by games companies.

Traditionally, games were sold by requiring one upfront fee, which is paid when the customer is purchasing a game. This was usually done over the counter at a shop. After buying the game, no further payments are required. This model does still exist, both with boxed physical releases, and with downloadable games. Today, games that are sold at a specific price point for a one-off fee are known as “premium” games.

Increasingly though, it is easy to find games that are available to be downloaded for “free”. However, whilst the initial download
of the game is free, these types of games are often monetised by offering “in-app purchases” (IAPs), which players are able to make at their discretion. This model is called “free-to-play”, which is often shortened to “F2P”.

One of the most common methods for monetising games via IAPs sees players able to progress through the game faster by spending some real money. For example, a game may ask for payment
to acquire extra lives, to use more powerful characters, to fast forward a timer preventing a player’s progress, or to buy fictional “in-game currency” that can then be used to acquire certain in- game abilities.

F2P games can be of great value to consumers and developers alike. This is because the F2P business model allows consumers to play extremely high-quality games entirely free, without actually having to spend any money (unless they feel that they want to).

Importantly, a report published by TIGA in 2013 showed that typically 95 per cent of consumers playing a F2P game don’t spend any money at all, with only 5% of users of free games spending any money on IAPs. Whilst our report is from 2013, these figures appear to have remained consistent, according to more recent statistics.

Whilst F2P games are seemingly enjoyed by most without any further purchases being made, what cannot be overstated is just how easy it can be to spend large amounts of money over time on F2P games.

It is not unknown for children – innocently or otherwise – to spend significant sums of their parents’ money on a game that is understood by those adults to be “free”. This often happens when parents give their children their device passwords and thus the ability to make purchases without first seeking parental approval. Parents and guardians should avoid giving their children their device passwords, to prevent unauthorised spending.

The UK’s regulator, the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) continues to actively investigate the use of dark patterns (or “online choice architecture”, as it is more officially known) generally. With the EU’s Digital Services Act already addressing some consumer protection issues (including dark patterns) and a high profile US case regarding dark patterns, we might see some further regulations/guidelines introduced in the UK that have the effect of covering such use in games.

However, it is important to recognise that the video games industry already adheres to high standards in relation to consumer protection. Back in April 2014, the CMA published Principles for online and app-based games, and these principles are intended to act as a guide for games companies to use in-app purchases
in a responsible way. The Principles aren’t new law in this area, but they do set out the CMA’s view on how current consumer protection laws apply to video game developers and their use of in-app purchases. Therefore, games companies who sell to consumers in the UK will be expected to comply with those principles, otherwise the CMA may investigate them further and take the appropriate action.

To expand upon the Principles a little more, they were developed after extensive consultation with TIGA, games businesses and other interested parties. They look to ensure that consumers, particularly children, are protected from commercially dubious practices.

On 3 June 2019, TIGA issued a press release following the World Health Organisation’s inclusion of “gaming-disorder” in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as an officially recognised illness. You can find the press release here.

As background, on 18 June 2018, the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a classification of a new “gaming disorder” in their International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). As defined by the WHO, a gaming disorder is:

• “A pattern of gaming behaviour (digital-gaming or video-gaming) characterised by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent
that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.”

For “gaming disorder” to be diagnosed, the WHO stated:

• “The behaviour pattern must be of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning and would normally have been evident for at least 12 months.”

For more details, please visit: who.int/features/qa/gaming- disorder/en

It is important to note that the WHO believes that only a minority of gamers suffer from “gaming disorder”:

• “Studies suggest that gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people who engage in digital- or video-gaming activities. However, people who partake in gaming should be alert to the amount of time they spend on gaming activities, particularly when it is to the exclusion of other daily activities, as well as to any changes in their physical or psychological health and social functioning that could be attributed to their pattern of gaming behaviour.”

Several academics and healthcare professionals publicly disagreed with the WHO’s classification, saying it lacked consensus and could lead to misdiagnosis or stigmatisation of gamers. For example: theverge.com/2018/6/19/17479318/gaming-disorder- who-psychology-video-games-science

Studies estimate between 0.3-1 per cent of the general population might qualify for a potential acute diagnosis of internet gaming disorder. Some studies suggest that gaming disorder is a symptom of underlying attention related mental health issues, rather than a unique phenomenon.